Implications to today's ComCom decision?

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Implications to today's ComCom decision?

alliao

321 posts

Ultimate Geek

#69879 14-Oct-2010 18:57

http://www.comcom.govt.nz/uba-with-sub-loop-extension-service/

Still reading through the giant pdf = =

wonder what will happen? All access seekers can now access cabinets?

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#391933 14-Oct-2010 19:36

Access seekers have always been able to use cabinets.

The decision today relates solely to the price paid for a telco/ISP who wants to provide both wholesale voice services from the exchange and UBA broadband from the cabinet. This situation could result in paying twice for the line cost, ie from the exchange to the cabinet and from the cabinet to the household. The ComCom has simply clarified things as this was an unintended consequence.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Cymro

283 posts

Ultimate Geek

#391979 14-Oct-2010 21:31

sbiddle: Access seekers have always been able to use cabinets.

The decision today relates solely to the price paid for a telco/ISP who wants to provide both wholesale voice services from the exchange and UBA broadband from the cabinet. This situation could result in paying twice for the line cost, ie from the exchange to the cabinet and from the cabinet to the household. The ComCom has simply clarified things as this was an unintended consequence.

Not quite how i read it, it relates to how much Access Seekers have to pay for the UBA component at the cabinet if they also take up SLU/SLES to provide their own LLU voice service from the exchange.

Until now that meant paying the naked UBA price (which is higher) because they were not buying the Wholesale POTS service, as well as the SLU/SLES price to get their own voice service to the exchange.

The decision is basically that they get to pay the clothed UBA price instead of the naked price.

Have to say that the tone of the document is pretty shocking, suggesting Telecom raise it's retail prices if it wants to cover the costs of cabinets, how is that better for customers? GG ComCom....

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#394921 22-Oct-2010 23:20

Well thats the same thing as saying Telecom cannot undercut its competitors by selling retail services below cost, so yeah.

Time to find a new industry!

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#394941 23-Oct-2010 01:33

Soo as I read your comments and not really knowing all the acronyms above (most but not all) is what you believe the CC decision to mean that Naked broadband could possibly be around the same price as a non naked broadband line???

If so that would be great as you would like to think one of two things happen...Those like me who use Naked DSL are going to pay less or possibly the ISP's offering more data for the same dollars. Obviously if i'm off target then sorry to ask hehe.

If the above is right would the ISP's know of this decision in advance of the public release??? As I know of a thread on here that has a certain ISP's customers (myself included) waiting with baited breath for announcements of new and (hopefully) improved plans.

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#394998 23-Oct-2010 12:13

jtbthatsme: Soo as I read your comments and not really knowing all the acronyms above (most but not all) is what you believe the CC decision to mean that Naked broadband could possibly be around the same price as a non naked broadband line???

If so that would be great as you would like to think one of two things happen...Those like me who use Naked DSL are going to pay less or possibly the ISP's offering more data for the same dollars. Obviously if i'm off target then sorry to ask hehe.

If the above is right would the ISP's know of this decision in advance of the public release??? As I know of a thread on here that has a certain ISP's customers (myself included) waiting with baited breath for announcements of new and (hopefully) improved plans.

Nope, thats not correct. Whatever services are purchased on a line (either Broadband or POTS) a component of line rental will need to be included. Naked DSL includes that line cost so UBA from an exchange can have POTS added for mot much extra. Cabinetised naked DSL cant include POTS at the cabinet with Telecom's current setup (I guess they chose the wrong gear, or somebody didn't want POTS cards in cabinets because that would require VoIP to the exchange, which is become obsolete anyway). To get voice services at a cabinet you have to buy another POTS service from cabinet to exchange, which you dont want to pay line costs for all over again. A fully cabinetised network would include POTS/VoIP at the cabinet, and the very few remaining exchanges would simply become data centres that look after backhaul. Obviously quite a disruptive direction for technology to be moving, so its a bumpy ride for ISPs that resell Telecom services like UBA.

Interesting comparison to cabinetisation, is that with FTTP you would mostly see passive cabinets only (basically just optical patch panels and maybe splitters) because all active gear is at the premises, so the Main Distribution Frame at the exchange is replaced by an Optical Distribution Frame at the fibre co. The fibre signal doesn't degrade over short distances so no need for active cabinets anymore.

Time to find a new industry!

jtbthatsme

937 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#395002 23-Oct-2010 12:36

Oh well there was always hope hehe and who knows maybe Xnet's new plans will still be worthy of upgrading to. Cheers for the reply.